So...are the H&K's really worth that much more?

This is a discussion on So...are the H&K's really worth that much more? within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; From most of the reviews I've read it does seem as though they are up to the long term task. The specs/description even mention surviving ...

So...are the H&K's really worth that much more?

From most of the reviews I've read it does seem as though they are up to the long term task. The specs/description even mention surviving +p ammo after thousands of rounds. I'm interested in the USP 9mm compact for those times when "carry discretion" is a top priority, but I don't want to spend $$$ just for a name. This is also a firearm I would like to purchase in the hopes that my wife will shoot more often. She doesn't like my 45's recoil and I'm thinking the 9mm would better suite her and make it more fun. Looks like this gun will be just south of 1K, that's a lot for plastic.

From most of the reviews I've read it does seem as though they are up to the long term task. The specs/description even mention surviving +p ammo after thousands of rounds. I'm interested in the USP 9mm compact for those times when "carry discretion" is a top priority, but I don't want to spend $$$ just for a name. This is also a firearm I would like to purchase in the hopes that my wife will shoot more often. She doesn't like my 45's recoil and I'm thinking the 9mm would better suite her and make it more fun. Looks like this gun will be just south of 1K, that's a lot for plastic.

I don't own a HK. I do have one on my short list though. I do own a sig p220, and sig is of course another manufacturer that weekly has its value questioned on the message boards. In my opinion what a particular firearm is worth is relevant only to the person purchasing / carrying that particular firearm. Many people feel that custom 1911's are worth well over $2000. I don't personally own any such 1911, and it would really take a lot of saving for me to be able to lay down that kind of coin for one. However, my lack of ability / desire to save up and buy one doesn't make those particular guns any less valuable to their owners. In this sig "value" threads there is always a group of people who say sigs are overpriced, blah, blah, blah...however, I think that my p220SAS is worth every penny I paid for it.

Same goes for HK i'm sure. I've seen only a very small number of people who have laid down the coin for a HK firearm that weren't ultimately content with their decision to do so. Most HK (and sig, kimber, etc) owners I've talked to have maintained their state of contentment with their purchases long after they laid down the money for any of those particular firearms. So, in those cases I'd say that any of the higher priced guns are worth what they cost.

On the flipside, guns like glocks, m&p's, etc are all so good of values, especially from a utilitarian standpoint, that it's difficult for some people to want anything that costs more than those guns. Most of my handguns are glocks, so I can certainly understand this point of view. It's hard to beat a $530 gun that functions flawlessly for such huge numbers of users. They are great firearms, and in terms of potential life saving tools, they are relatively inexpensive. This elevates them in the value discussions for large numbers of people. I can't find any fault in this logic to be honest. However, such firearms having such a high utilitarian value in my opinion does nothing to make sigs, HK's, etc less valuable. It's purely a matter of different strokes for different folks in my opinion.

Buy what you think you'll be happy with for the long haul. When looking at the big picture, ammo costs, training costs (if you attended any courses), etc will all greatly surpass the upfront cost of any of the firearms I've mentioned in this reply. If you end up with something you are happy with, will practice with, and feel comfortable in using to save a life, then it's really pretty difficult for anyone else to say that your purchase isn't "worth" what you paid for it.

IMO, it's the strong, longstanding reputation for absolute reliability (including out-of-the-box), durability, "overbuilt" design and effectiveness as a defensive weapon that you're getting. To those who value that sort of value, it's well worth it.

A handful of other brands/models have similarly strong reputations.

Glock's core series of full- and compact-sized (next step down) guns definitely do, for their reliability, durability, simplicity / uniformity of the manual of arms across models.

From what I've been able to tell, the Bersa Thunder Ultra Pro Compact does, as well.

The S&W third generation steel pistols certainly do, too.

Still, a Glock can be had for ~$500 or so, whereas a comparable H&K P2000 or USP can be had for $750-850 or thereabouts. That's a healthy premium. For many, the hoped-for bump in reliability and durability over a comparable Glock wouldn't be worth it, particularly when both show exceptional reliability, durability. But then, there's ergonomics, fit, accuracy, shootability, and what feels "right" in the hand. That's something that lower price simply cannot make up for, to many people.

So...are the H&K's really worth that much more?

I picked up a USP40 compact LEM back when HK was offering them at a discount to airline pilots. I never really warms up to it though. Certainly an over-built tank but I don't like the LEM trigger or mag release. Wouldn't take much to get use to though. Sold it and bought 1.5 Glocks with the proceeds.

So...are the H&K's really worth that much more?

I own an HK45 and a HK P30 9mm. I love both guns and have shot 800-1000 rounds through each gun without a malfunction or misfeed. I have shot every value brand of ammo without malfunction. They are garage ammo disposals. I believe I will save the premium price of the gun by shooting low cost ammunition reliably. To each his own. It is a personal preference.

The HK's offer features that the Glocks do not- Ambi mag release, ambi slide release, DAO or SA/DA, safeties, etc. The HK's also come with a different type of finish, but I have not researched the difference there.

IMO I think the HK is obviously more of a pistol... the question is *how* much more. Gunbroker says about $400 more, which is a lot of cheese.

From most of the reviews I've read it does seem as though they are up to the long term task. The specs/description even mention surviving +p ammo after thousands of rounds. I'm interested in the USP 9mm compact for those times when "carry discretion" is a top priority, but I don't want to spend $$$ just for a name. This is also a firearm I would like to purchase in the hopes that my wife will shoot more often. She doesn't like my 45's recoil and I'm thinking the 9mm would better suite her and make it more fun. Looks like this gun will be just south of 1K, that's a lot for plastic.

I have a 9mm H&K P30 V3, and my answer to your question is yes, the gun is worth the additional cost, and yes, the prices are ridiculous, too.

Is the HK worth it? Without a doubt. It is one of the finest pistols on the planet.

BUT there are pistols that are just as capable that cost far less. (Also companies that are far less hostile to civilian gun owners). But if the HK is making you feel warm and fuzzy, go for it. You get what you pay for. You just have to understand that other companies can give you more than you pay for and produce a gun on par with the USP series for less cash.

I have an H&K USP45c and I agree with GlassWolf. They do offer many upgraded features and absolute reliability. For one my USP45c has a hammer forged barrel which contributes greatly to accuracy. It can be carried cocked n locked as well as SA/DA. Another feature I really like is that when fired to slide lock, inserting a fresh mag releases the slide chambering a round.

I also have Glocks, M&P's, Colt & SA 1911's and love them all. I bought an H&K to see what the fuss was all about. I learned that they are worth the extra $$$, they bring. I probably won't buy another simply because there are so many others I want to add to my collection.

I had a USP40 which I sold back in '98. Mistake. I now own a HK45, Kimber Gov't, two Glocks and two XDm. If I ever wanted to OC, it would be the HK every time. When I first started shooting my own handloads, I would only shoot them out of my HK45. Reason is easy and already stated-- the thing is like an uparmed 1911. If I run out of bullets I could beat a dozen bad guys to death with the beast.
I shoot better with the HK and prefer it over all the other semi's I've owned over the years.
So, is it worth it? To me-- a resounding yes. For you? Dunno. Rent one and shoot it first. You might like the Sig, M&P, or Glocks better. For me, if it came down to it, I'd sell off my collection and keep only the Kimber and HK. ONLY if it came down to it.

I own both an HK and a Glock. Both are excellent pistols. In my personal opinion, details on the HK - ambi mag release, switchable de-cocker, slide stop mechanisms - do make it worth more, as those systems probably cost more to put in. Could I live with the just the Glock? Sure. Do I appreciate the additions to the HK? Absolutely. Are the additions worth it? Yeah, if you want a different pistol that has those things they are worth it.

I don't think we're comparing an Avalanche to an Escalade here, I think a Glock to an HK is a different comparison.